Standing Committee A

Mr. George Stevenson

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

9.30 am

John Denham: I beg to move,
That—
 (1) during proceedings on the Police Reform Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee do meet when the House is sitting—
(a) on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock, and
(b) on Thursdays at half-past Nine o'clock and half-past Two o'clock,
except that on Tuesday, 11th June 2002 and on Tuesday, 18th June 2002 the Committee shall not meet at half-past Ten o'clock;
 (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 35, Schedule 4, Clauses 36 and 37, Schedule 5, Clauses 38 to 42, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 4, Clause 43, Schedule 6, Clauses 44 to 91, Schedules 7 and 8, Clause 92, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules;
 (3) the proceedings on Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1 and New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 11th June 2002;
 (4) the proceedings on Clause 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 to 12, Schedule 3 and Clauses 13 to 27 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. on Thursday, 13th June 2002;
 (5) the proceedings on Clauses 28 to 34 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 18th June 2002;
 (6) the proceedings on Clause 35, Schedule 4, Clauses 36 and 37, Schedule 5, Clauses 38 to 42 and New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 4 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 25th June 2002;
 (7) the proceedings on Clause 43, Schedule 6 and Clauses 44 to 62 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 25th June 2002; and
 (8) the remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. on Thursday, 27th June 2002.
 We look forward to serving on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson. I have done so before, and I am confident that we shall make good and orderly progress. Although there is broad agreement throughout the House on many of the key objectives and principles of the Bill, the Committee will want to consider it in detail. Judging from the debates on Second Reading and in the other place, there are two contentious parts under part 1 and chapter 1 of part 4. The programme motion will allow adequate time for careful consideration of those provisions and the time that has been agreed through the usual channels will ensure that the Bill, as a whole, is properly scrutinised. 
 It has been 16 days since the Bill was debated on Second Reading, so there has been considerable scope for tabling amendments, an opportunity that has not been lost on Opposition Members, and the two-week Whitsun recess will provide a further opening for members of the Committee to table amendments before we resume our proceedings on 11 June. I hope that we can agree the programme motion.

James Paice: I endorse the Minister's welcome to you, Mr. Stevenson. I, too, have served on Committees under your chairmanship and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so again. I extend in absentia a welcome to Miss Widdecombe, who will also Chair some of our sittings.
 The Minister was right to say that the Bill has received a large measure of support—perhaps more so from Opposition Members than from Labour Members. It is the absence of certain provisions from the Bill that the Government are unhappy about. They want to put those back, whereas we are more content with the Bill in its current form. We shall obviously table minor amendments as well as amendments to the more major provisions to which the Minister has referred, and I share his view that there is time under the programme motion to do that. 
 The Minister said that there have been 16 days since the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, but there is a dearth of Government amendments. I accept that he has concentrated on amendments to part 1, which we shall discuss today and at our first sitting after the recess, but I look forward to the Government tabling those amendments that he prefaced in his speech on Second Reading. Obviously, we shall need adequate time to discuss not only those amendments that were referred to in another place, but those that deal with sex offenders and the other issues that have been promised, and which will be new to the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can give us plenty of time to study them and perhaps table amendments to those amendments. 
 Although, we shall examine all the Bill's provisions in Committee, we shall deal with the contentious issues to which the Minister referred on a wider scale when the Bill is discussed on Report. I accept that it is outside your purview, Mr. Stevenson, and that of members of the Committee, but I wish to put it on the record that we hope that some issues can be returned to at that time. 
 I appreciate the way in which the Ministers in the other place responded to the amendments tabled by the Opposition. That welcoming approach means that, setting aside the big issues, the Bill is considerably better. There were amendments to a whole raft of different clauses that were not in the original draft. The Government listened, and conceded the amendments. 
 I hope that we will continue to take the same consensual approach, and I am encouraged in that by the Secretary of State's speech to the Police Federation of England and Wales conference last week, when he apologised and said, ''I have made mistakes.'' So say all of us. Therefore, I hope that the Home Office approaches this stage of the Bill with a degree of 
 chagrin and, perhaps, a willingness to listen to the pertinent arguments of Opposition Members. With those remarks, I am content to support the programme motion, and I look forward to the Committee stage.

Norman Baker: I, too, welcome you, Mr. Stevenson. We know each other from other avenues, but I look forward to your chairmanship and that of Miss Widdecombe. Given her personality and knowledge of this subject area, I suspect that she may find it difficult to keep her opinions to herself as we proceed.
 It is nice to begin on a note of harmony and agreement. We agree on most of the Bill, especially as it has been amended. We also agree about where we disagree, which is useful. Ministers in the other place, and, indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), have responded in a productive and sensible way to some of the concerns expressed, and I look forward to further useful exchanges as the Bill progresses. When we debated the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the Under-Secretary showed a willingness to listen and respond to genuine concerns, and I am confident that he will show the same response to this Bill. 
 On a personal note, I thank hon. Members who congratulated me on my recent wedding, which took place last Saturday. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) tells me that he has already done 30 years without remission, but we can get time off for good conduct if that is appropriate. I take issue with one Conservative Member, who suggested that I should have been at the Programming Sub-Committee on Monday rather than on my honeymoon. I had other priorities on Monday and that would have been taking duty a little too far. 
 There are only one or two issues of substance on which there is disagreement between the parties. I hope very seriously that the Government will listen to those issues and not railroad something through simply because that is the position that they have hitherto adopted. I am confident that Opposition Members will be putting forward good arguments, and, with a degree of flexibility and understanding, we may yet find our way through to an agreement. Certainly, that is the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and myself. 
 Hon. Members who attended the Programming Sub-Committee will know that we suggested an alternative programme motion in respect of the last sitting, which we think is too long. We would have preferred more time on one of the earlier sittings. I do not intend to push the matter again this morning, simply to register it for the benefit of the Committee. On the last day, 27 June 2002, there may not be enough business to keep us going. Then again, I am always surprised by the ability of hon. Members to fill space whenever it is provided, so perhaps my fear will be unfounded. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that might be reached during an afternoon sitting. Finally, I remind hon. Members that the Committee will not be meeting on the mornings of Tuesday 11 June or Tuesday 18 June.Clause 1National Policing Plan

Clause 1 - National Policing Plan

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
'(vi) the setting of any objectives under sections 26 or 71 of the Police Act 1997 (c.50); and
(vii) the setting of any objectives under section 89 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16).'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 133, in page 2, line 24, leave out ', plans and advice'.
 No. 76, in page 2, line 26, at end insert— 
'(d) must contain the appropriate information on financial resources and constraints as may be provided by the Secretary of State.'.

Norman Baker: The amendments relate to the national policing plan. My colleagues and I are in favour of that concept, and the amendment is one example of where we wish to go slightly further than the Government. If there is to be a national policing plan, it should be just that—a plan that takes account of all policing. Our difficulty with the clause is that the policing plan covers the 43 police authorities, but does not take account of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. Obviously, what those bodies do relates to the 43 police authorities and the work of the 43 forces. It is difficult to understand how a policing plan could be comprehensive if those bodies are not included in it.
 From April 2002, the Home Secretary has been able to set national objectives for the Central Police Training and Development Authority under section 89 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. He can also set objectives under sections 26 and 71 of the Police Act 1997 for NCIS and the NCS; he already has those powers. However, three sets of national objectives, produced separately, do not suggest the coherent national policing planning that perhaps should be achieved. We fear that the clause misses an opportunity to bring those sets of objectives together, and to produce a comprehensive and coherent message for policing across the country. 
 The clause also has the disadvantage of reinforcing the doubtless inaccurate impression that the Government are more concerned with keeping as much control as they can over 43 police authorities than with paying attention to NCIS and the NCS in the way that we would like. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is wholly inaccurate, and that it is scurrilous of me to have even thought of the 
 suggestion; nevertheless, that is open to that interpretation, given the way that the provisions are set out. 
 Amendment No. 133 is rather different from amendment No. 132, and we are surprised that they have been grouped together. Amendment No. 133 relates to the words ''plans and advice''. A theme of the Committee will perhaps be, as it certainly was on Second Reading and in the Lords, the extent to which it is appropriate for the Home Secretary of the day to micro-manage or intervene on the police's day-to-day operational activities, or in any way curtail improperly or unwisely the activities of a chief constable. 
 My colleagues and I—and, I am sure, Conservative Members—will be defending the traditional tripartite arrangement between chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary, and will argue that we change that at our peril. The Minister will therefore understand that we are always on the look-out against back-door methods of changing that arrangement. It may not be the Government's intention to do so, but the provision would nevertheless give an avenue for a Home Secretary, now or in the future, should he or she wish to go down that track. 
 I have concerns that the words ''plans and advice'' in page 2, line 24, give the Home Secretary of the day wide powers to include practically anything that he or she wishes in the national policing plan. The words ''plans and advice'' could go against the spirit of that tripartite arrangement if the Home Secretary were determined that they should. After all, the powers that the Home Secretary is being given under subsection (6) are already significant, especially when added to the powers that he already has under previous legislation, such as the Police Act 1996. Subsection (6)(c) still allows further information to be given, so I am not quite clear about the necessity for including ''plans and advice''. 
 The Minister will know that this matter was raised in the House of Lords; this is a duplicate amendment from the other place. My colleagues in the Lords felt that Lord Rooker, perhaps uncharacteristically, had not addressed the point, and that is why amendment No. 133 was tabled again. I look forward to the Minister's responses on those subjects.

James Paice: I wish to speak to amendment No. 76. Clause 1 introduces the concept of the national policing plan. In many ways, it is the precursor to the whole of part 1, and to some other parts of the Bill. It sets the framework for the powers that the Secretary of State seeks to take in later parts of the Bill. They add considerably to the powers in the 1996 Act, which was passed under the previous Conservative Government, and to which we will frequently refer. That aspect of the 1996 Act was contentious, because the Secretary of State took new powers, but this Bill, and this clause, go a lot further.
 The Home Secretary already has powers to set objectives and performance targets, to issue codes of practice, and even to require the retirement of a chief constable—a point that we will address later. Those are immense powers, but the power to issue a national policing plan builds on them, and takes them quite a lot further. 
 We do not object to the overall principle of a national policing plan, but we have reservations with regard to the amount of detail that it might contain. Amendment No. 76 seeks to insert into the clause an obligation for the plan to include an explanation of the resources that the Home Secretary will make available in order for it to be executed. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that. Other amendments—some of which have not yet been dealt with—address some of our other concerns. 
 A plan that does not include any indication of the resources that are available will be relatively meaningless, because it will be impossible to judge whether there is a realistic chance that it will be fully and successfully carried out. The clause includes an obligation on the Home Secretary to lay the plan before Parliament: when hon. Members judge it, they will want to know what resources are attached to it. 
 I suspect that, when we debate the police settlement each year, the Minister is already armed with all the information that comes forward annually. However, that is usually debated in February—or in January—which is far too late to be able to assess the national policing plan for any year. 
 We shall, of course, need to have information about the overall total standard spending for the police force, but we will also need to know the individual standard spending assessments, and whether the Government are making assumptions about efficiency savings. We will also need information about any changes in the formula of allocation, and about capital budgets and top-sliced amounts. During the past few years, the Government have had a tendency substantially to increase the sums that are top-sliced for specific funds—most notably the crime fighting fund, with regard to which they said, ''This is taken off the top, and we will distribute it according to our own criteria, outside the total standard spending.'' 
 Funding for centrally provided services, and any transitional arrangements, must also be taken into account. It will also be necessary to be able to assess the resources against what has already been allowed for in previous years—I have referred to the huge increase in top-slicing. 
 Individual police authorities have been worried over the years about the late indication that they receive on the amount of resources that will be available. That occurs late in proceedings, which makes it difficult for them to make necessary calculations and judgments on council tax decisions. Amendment No. 76, which is different from the other amendments, has been tabled to suggest that no national plan can be complete without an indication of the resources that are available to implement it. Indeed, as the amendment 
 says, the plan cannot be complete without the provision of information about constraints that may be put on those resources by the Secretary of State. 
 I referred to top-slicing funds for central allocation, and a later group of amendments addresses the ways in which the Secretary of State could constrain how the resources are used. It would be right to insert an obligation into the national plan that it should include information about the planned resources that the Government will make available and allow to be spent. I hope that the Government understand the need for cohesion between a plan and its resources and that they will look favourably on the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I shall primarily address amendments Nos. 132 and 133. I broadly welcome the annual national policing plan. However, we are discussing a strategic document and such a document should be coherent and comprehensive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) mentioned. I fail to see why we do not include the three other bodies that we suggested.
 I took the opportunity to read about the NCS. It is strange to have separate plans that are not dovetailed into the national plan. For example, the squad is staffed by 1,450 officers who are seconded from police forces throughout England and it has 36 locations throughout the country. In terms of accountability, there are 10 elected members of local police authorities, who are nominated by the Association of Police Authorities, on the NCS authority. Such facts are among the reasons why one must look at the whole. 
 If one reads the section of the NCS website entitled ''Added value'', one sees a vision of how everything must been seen under one umbrella at some stage. The squad is described as 
''a national police agency under single command with overall responsibility for direction and control and with sufficient mobile resources to undertake large scale protracted operations''. 
The squad's own technical support is 
''capable of deploying sensitive and sophisticated technical equipment and assisting other police forces as appropriate''. 
Again, links are there all the time. The squad supports 
''other police forces as appropriate in their investigations of serious crime.'' 
In other words, there is continuous interlocking, which is also true of NCIS. One of its strategic aims is 
 ''The provision of services to enhance the co-ordination and development of criminal intelligence to combat serious and organised crime.'' 
The details show that the NCS and NCIS are not stand-alone organisations because there is a single objective to which we are all signing up: reducing crime and tackling it effectively. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the amendment. 
 With regard to amendment No. 133, I share the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about the term ''plans and advice''. Perhaps the word ''plans'' has a specific connotation because we can always consider the word ''advice'' in terms of additional guidance. However, when the words are put together, the phrase is open-ended about what could 
 be incorporated under it. That is my concern, and if the Minister agreed to something more precise, we would know where we stood and what the phrase asked for. 
 With regard to amendment No. 76, we have a problem of timing throughout the process. If we have separate plans for all the different bodies, they will be published at different times of the year. Equally, the timing must be right on financial constraints so that it makes some sense of the annual policing plan. The plans must go together, which is what links the three amendments.

John Denham: I do not want to stray too far into clause stand part territory, but it may be helpful if I explain one development in the Government's thinking since the publication of the police reform White Paper and earlier discussions in another place. The national policing plan will be informed by discussions in a non-statutory national policing forum, as we set out in the White Paper. It suggested that the membership of the forum consisted of police and Home Office interests with some representation from victims and witnesses organisations.
 We have discussed the forum over the past few months, particularly with police service interests. They said that they would welcome a wider range of inputs, including those representing the local government and health agencies with which they work in partnership locally to reduce crime. I hope to be able to announce the forum's membership in the near future, but I thought that it would be useful for the Committee to know that we are moving in that broader direction in response to discussions with police service interests. That was a useful part of our consultations. 
 I shall deal with plans and advice and the question of broadening the content of the national policing plan. I do not want to anticipate later debates, but I shall give one example of an issue that might be covered in the national policing plan but would not be appropriate to cover as a best value performance indicator or a Secretary of State priority. As the Committee will know, having commissioned a report last autumn into a day in the life of a police officer, which deliberately raised the issue of bureaucracy higher up the agenda of policing debates, a taskforce led by Sir David O'Dowd, the recently retired Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has been working with the police service on how to tackle red tape and bureaucracy. 
 I cannot say what will be in the first national policing plan, but it is highly likely that we would want some reference to the implementation of recommendations arising from that report. We would want to see forces and police authorities throughout the country address that. It would not be appropriate to lay it down at this stage as a code of practice or a best value performance indicator, and it will be a rather different priority from those that the Home Secretary has set previously. None the less, it is sensible that such references should be in such a report. The hon. Member for Lewes said that the issue was not addressed in another place, but it is the sort of thing that could be included. 
 I shall deal first with the amendments concerning NCIS and the NCS. I shall ask the Committee to reject them, but I want to acknowledge that a point of 
 substance has been raised. The amendment is inappropriate because NCIS and the NCS have their own statutory framework. The lines of accountability are different as, for example, the Home Secretary appoints the chair of the service authority and, since 1 April 2002 under the existing legislation, has the power to appoint the director general of both NCIS and the NCS. It is a very different line of accountability, and because consultation procedures for setting the priorities of those national organisations are laid out in statute, it would be odd to have two different pieces of legislation to use to set the priorities. The amendment would give rise to confusion, which is why it is inappropriate. 
 However, I acknowledge that we cannot say that serious crime happens here while ordinary policing happens somewhere else. One subject of discussion in the national policing forum, as it is in all our discussions with the police service, will be the interface between the work on serious crime that is done at police force level and that which is done at national level. There is an interrelationship, and it affects workloads. In the run-up to the World cup, NCIS co-ordinates the anti-football hooliganism activity, but police forces co-ordinate the seeking of banning orders. We want to ensure that those issues are properly taken into account when we develop the national policing plan. The consultation requirements enable the Secretary of State to consult directly with the NCS and NCIS where that helps to shape the plan. I assure Liberal Democrats and other hon. Members that we acknowledge the issue at the kernel of the amendment, but we do not agree with the wording. 
 I turn to the amendment relating to the Central Police Training and Development Authority. The authority has been renamed Centrex to reflect its developed role as the new home for the national centre for policing excellence. Centrex supports the development of policing in various ways, and has its own statutory objectives. However, I acknowledge that it is right for people to expect its objectives to be compatible with the objectives and priorities of the national policing plan. Future Home Office Ministers will have to ensure that CPTDA—as it is in the legislation—is given appropriate objectives to support the plan. 
 I understand the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, but it is not workable. After some to-ing and fro-ing in another place, it was agreed on a Government amendment that there will be a deadline for producing the plan in normal circumstances, but not in the event of a general election, major event, or outrage such as 11 September. The idea is to ensure that the national policing plan can inform Government decisions on the allocation of resources, and those of police forces and police authorities when they set their own objectives and allocate resources locally. The plan therefore needs to precede the resource-setting process. We anticipate that questions about resources will be raised 
 when we draw up the plan and in discussions with the national forum. People will know the broad picture on available finance, as the spending review makes it a matter of public record. People will look back at the progress made in the previous year, and the extent to which resources were perceived to be sufficient to meet all the set objectives. I am sure that there will be a discussion on the relationship between finances and objectives. 
 I may regret saying this, but there has to be a chicken and an egg somewhere in the process. In the annual cycle, having the plan in place in November will inform decisions shortly after on the allocation of resources nationally and locally. That will enable Parliament to consider the settlement, and to debate the adequacy of the national policing plan in due course. That can then be brought into the consideration of next year's plans, and will enable us to take adequately into account the financial issues about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The amendment would make it difficult for the process to happen smoothly and efficiently.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for the Minister's detailed and lengthy response to the amendments. I am happy to accept that the wording of our amendment is not perfect: that is the advice of the Minister's officials. However, I am grateful that he recognises the serious point to the amendments. The forum that he mentioned is a helpful step forward, and doubtless we will support it. With respect, however, that is not the whole answer. A method needs to be found to bring together the different elements of policing throughout the country in one plan. As the Minister said, people cannot say that serious crime happens in one place and less serious crime elsewhere. I am not convinced that the method to achieve our objective is in place.
 The Minister has been good enough to recognise that there is a case for the amendment, and I hope that he will return in due course with a proposal to improve the arrangements, which are insufficient. The Minister smiles, which I think means he agrees—I am optimistic as always. As I said, he recognises that we have a case, and perhaps that will evolve over time. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(f) shall not include specification by the Secretary of State of the numbers of—
(i) police officers; or
(ii) civilian officers designated under section 35,
to be employed in any police area.'.

Roger Gale: With this we may discuss amendment No. 127, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(g) shall not include specification by the Secretary of State of the numbers of community safety schemes under section 36 to be established in police accreditation areas.'.
 I advise hon. Members that there is a mistake on the amendment paper. In amendment No. 127, the word ''accreditation'' should be after the word ''safety'' on the second line, rather than after the word ''police'' on the final line. I hope that that is clear.

James Paice: Yes, Mr. Stevenson, although I was reading a different version with the correct wording. I live in optimistic anticipation that the precise wording of the amendment is significant because the Minister intends to accept it.
 This group presages a debate that will take place some weeks from now on part 4, in which the Government introduce the concept of community support officers and community safety accreditation schemes. Following Second Reading, the Minister and the rest of the Committee will be fully aware that there is a dispute between the sides on this issue. 
 Without going through the whole debate about CSOs now, I repeat the point that my colleagues and I made in the Chamber: we have no difficulty in supporting the concept of civilians helping and being involved with the police, but we have difficulty with the types of police powers that they are given. In part 4 and schedule 4, the Government seek to give civilians a very wide range of police powers. Some are in the Bill now, and I suspect that the Government will seek to bring back at least one. As a result, there is a suspicion at the back of many people's minds that at some stage in future, a Government—the convention on these occasions is not to accuse the current Government of an ulterior motive—may seek to use CSOs to supplant regular police officers. 
 One argument is that CSOs will be cheaper to employ than regular police officers. We shall come to that larger debate later, but there is no doubt that employing CSOs would involve a huge cost saving. A future Chancellor of the Exchequer could say to the Home Secretary, ''I realise you need more people, but it would be cheaper to put CSOs on the streets, rather than regular officers.'' The worry is that there would be a gradual diminution in the standard of policing as a result. 
 On Second Reading, the Minister was challenged in a number of ways to rule out that possibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) challenged him on the issue of funds, to which the Minister replied: 
 ''I see nothing wrong with funds being made available for the development of CSOs.''—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 60.] 
None of us sees anything wrong with money being made available for that so long as it is not exclusively for the development of CSOs. Yet when my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked if he will 
''guarantee never to compel a police force to adopt an action plan that includes the forced deployment of CSOs''.——[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 60.] 
the Minister was, to put it mildly, evasive, as the record shows. He would not rule that out. 
 However, last week at the Police Federation conference, the Home Secretary, in his new emollient mood, said: 
 ''We are not going to force this on any police area.'' 
 Most people would take the word ''force'' at face value to mean that there would be no pressure whatever, rather than taking it literally to mean compulsion. 
 The amendments are drafted in the spirit of the Home Secretary's statement to the Police Federation, to ensure that the Bill states clearly that the national plan will not include an obligation on police forces in respect of how many CSOs, for example, should be employed under the accredited community safety schemes. Such decisions are rightly for chief police officers and their authorities, as we shall discuss under part 4. 
 Hon. Members should not be super-critical of one another, but it is imperative, in the spirit of the Home Secretary's statement last week—especially in view of his evasion of the issue on Second Reading—that the Bill should include a clear statement as proposed in the amendments.

Norman Baker: We support the amendments for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire explained, they would include in the Bill the Home Secretary's statement that no force will be applied to require police authorities or police forces to have CSOs.
 Some of us are slightly suspicious about the meaning of the word ''force'' in that context. If it means a legislative requirement stating, ''You must have CSOs,'' it is clear that that will not be forthcoming from the Home Secretary. However, whether there will be financial incentives to employ CSOs, or financial disincentives if they are not employed, is a different matter. Will pressure be applied through the police standards unit, for example? That is a much more open question. It is important to support the amendments to make it clear that the Government's intention is to allow independence at local level, whether or not individual police authorities feel it appropriate for CSOs to be employed in their area. 
 The second reason for supporting the amendments relates to the independence of police authorities and of chief constables. Amendment No. 126 makes a separate and important point to which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire did not refer. The Government come under criticism from several sides in recent years for the number of police officers and for the fact that we have returned to the situation in 1997. There is a plan to increase the number to 130,000. Although it is easy for Opposition Members to criticise the Government for the drop in police numbers—the previous Conservative Government were also criticised for their failure on that—the important point is that it is not morally correct to criticise them for failing to match police numbers if we are also arguing that they should not have the power to set the numbers for individual police authorities. Opposition parties sometimes argue a contradictory case on the matter. 
 I am not in favour of the Home Secretary determining police numbers for individual police authorities; that would be wholly inappropriate. He 
 can of course give guidance and, importantly, provide money for the employment of more officers, but how police authorities spend their money is ultimately a matter for them. It is, for example, up to chief constables to decide whether civilianisation should take place or whether money should be invested in technology. That is why the amendment is sensible. To be fair to the Government, if we argue—as many of us do—that the Bill should not allow the Home Secretary to intervene in micro-management, it ill behoves us to criticise the Government for failure on police numbers when they do not have the power to regulate those numbers. We should reach a deal whereby we do not give the Home Secretary the power but do not blame the Government for a subsequent perceived failure on police numbers. 
 The amendment seeks to ensure that CSOs are not brought in by the back door and questions whether the Home Secretary of the day should determine police numbers.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman talks about bringing in CSOs by the back door. If he watched BBC London television news this morning, was he as astonished as I was by the lead item that the Metropolitan police are today commencing a recruitment campaign for new community safety officers? Does he agree that it seems premature for the Met to be recruiting people for whom the statutory power does not yet exist?

Norman Baker: I did not see that item on the news this morning, but if people are being recruited to exercise powers that have not yet been given, that would be premature. Any police authority or chief constable can recruit such people under existing legislation. On a wider point, the enthusiasm of the Metropolitan police for CSOs has not been mirrored in the rest of the country. I congratulate Sir John Stevens on his success in capturing the Government's ear—but the price of that success has been the fact that Ministers have not listened to other chief constables.
 I see nothing in the amendments to which the Government could object. I will probably always be surprised by the Minister's response: he will no doubt come up with some argument against them, but they are perfectly sensible, are in line with Government policy and put in place important safeguards, so I hope that he will consider them carefully.

George Osborne: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson. It is my birthday today and I could not think of a better birthday present than to be on the Committee serving under your chairmanship. I am happy to accept birthday presents from any Committee member, maybe in the lunchtime break.
 I support the amendments. I and my party have no real objection to the national policing plan; my police authority in Cheshire told me that the proposals seem to be a repackaging of current practice. If that is the case, all well and good. However, I notice that in the excellent Home Affairs Committee report—it was a 
 great shame that only one member of that Select Committee, who is not present today, was put on the Standing Committee; that is not quite joined-up Parliament—Sir David Phillips, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and chief constable of Kent, said that he had no problem with a national plan if it gave a greater sense of corporate direction and was kept at a strategic level, but that he would have a problem if it were too prescriptive and strayed into micro-management. The amendments would ensure, in respect of the deployment of forces and CSOs, that that would not happen. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset was right to draw attention to the Minister's floundering on Second Reading. The Minister knew that he had made a mistake because he had to intervene later to clear up exactly what he said. After a good question from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney—who is a good friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and myself—about compelling police forces to use CSOs through the funding mechanism, he asked the Minister again: 
 ''Will he guarantee never to compel a police force to adopt an action plan that includes the forced deployment of CSOs?'' 
The Minister started to answer, 
 ''To say that there could never be a point in the future—'' 
whereupon he was interrupted, but he continued: 
 ''Let us be clear; at some point in future, it may be clear to everybody, including the community which is suffering, that policing is not being approached in the most effective way, so it would be ridiculous to go through the whole range of measures today and say, 'We will never do this or that.'''—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 60-61.] 
He was referring to the old clause 5, but the possibility remains that the national plan could be abused by some future Home Secretary who does not share the good intentions of the present Home Secretary. We should accept the amendment to ensure that that never happens.

John Denham: In politics, one lives and dies by selective quotation. In my days in opposition, I may have been guilty of that myself, so I cannot entirely complain if the same tactic is used on me in Committee. It remains reasonable to clarify what I said on Second Reading and in my later intervention.
 I said that the intention behind the Bill was not to use clause 5 or any other clause to impose CSOs. I repeated that the intention was not and never had been to use the Bill or clause 5 as a backdoor route to impose CSOs. I went on to say: 
 ''Nothing in clause 5 overrules the provision elsewhere in the Bill that it must be the chief constable's decision whether he or she wishes to appoint CSOs.''—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 69.] 
The position should have been pretty clear by the end of the Second Reading debate. I should also like to put on record what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the Police Federation conference last week: 
 ''We are not going to force this on any police area.'' 
Furthermore, on 13 March, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said: 
 ''Of course community support officers will not be imposed''.—[ 
 Official Report 
 , 13 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 888.] 
 ÌNorman BakerÌ: I accept that the Minister and his colleagues have no intention of imposing CSOs, but with respect, that is not the issue. We are debating whether the provisions, as drafted, would allow a future Home Secretary to impose CSOs. I contend that they would and the amendment is designed to prevent it.

John Denham: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Given the powers and structures of the Bill, the right time for that debate is the first sitting after the recess, when we shall seek to reintroduce clause 5 in an amended form. The argument about powers to impose directions on chief constables applies there, but it is not relevant to the context of the national policing plan, because the Secretary of State has no powers to enforce it. The plan exists to guide and shape the future direction of the police service. Police authorities and chief officers need to take account of it in developing their own police plans, but the Home Secretary's powers—dealt with in part 7—are confined to pointing out to a police authority where its plan is out of line with the priorities of the national policing plan. There is no linked power, for example, to rewrite the policing plan of a particular police authority to incorporate the issues raised today or any other matters. There is a debate to be had, but we should have it when we consider new clause 4 and the powers that it gives. It is not relevant to the national policing plan.

George Osborne: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances about compulsion, but would it be within the scope of a national plan issued by a Home Secretary to say that it would be a good idea if police forces introduced CSOs? It would give strong moral pressure, if that is the right phrase, to police forces, and if it was backed up with ring-fenced funding, police forces would have almost no option but to introduce CSOs.

John Denham: I hope that the national policing plan will reflect, as the entire process that we are trying to establish in the Bill should do, best policing practice across the country, which will be established on the basis of what is proven to work. The aim of the exercise is to have a framework for policing that respects and builds on the tripartite structure, which we value, as do Opposition Members, but ensures that we have ways to identify what works well, delivers safe communities, tackles crime in local communities and spreads that best practice. We would expect the national policing plan to pick up on many such issues, including, for example, bureaucracy.
 I see no objection—I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not either—to the national policing plan saying that forces should give priority to using established best practice and Sir David O'Dowd's recommendations. There is a broad range of issues that should properly be within the remit of the national policing plan. It is important to look at what the legislation says. Because of the controversy surrounding CSOs, there is some danger of building a 
 conspiracy theory about how the system is intended to operate or how the legislation would enable it to operate. 
 The question of how far the Secretary of State's powers of direct intervention go is focused in the original draft of the Bill in what was clause 5. We will seek to reintroduce those provisions in an amended form later. We can discuss the matter then. Now we are discussing the national policing plan. At the end of the day, there is no power for the Secretary of State to say that it should be rewritten. The national policing plan is of great value.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister understand that Opposition Members are particularly suspicious, without having to erect a conspiracy theory, because of what police authorities and local authorities repeatedly tell us? Certainly, that is true in my area. Their freedom to decide what is best for their area is increasingly constrained by Government diktat. In other words, the whole question of being allowed to do only what the Government will provide for in the way of funding on a strictly ring-fenced basis—

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman should keep his intervention as brief as possible.

Nick Hawkins: Yes, Mr. Stevenson.
 The Minister understands the point that I am making. Will he also respond to the question that I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Lewes? Even though we understand that police forces want to recruit, surely it is wrong for them to start a recruitment campaign for a type of officer for which there is not yet a statutory authority?

Roger Gale: Before the Minister replies, I should point out that I intend to have a stand part debate on this important clause. We need to concentrate on the issues specifically referred to in the amendments, which so far has been the case.

John Denham: In that case, perhaps I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I will deal with the position of the Metropolitan police service in the stand part debate. The local government White Paper set out the Government's determination to try to reduce across Government the extent of ring-fenced funds for local authorities. I will not pursue that point now. I hope that I have responded to the other issues raised in the discussion.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to answer the question. I think that he starts with a difficulty, because he advances two wholly different arguments: first that the amendments are not necessary, and secondly that the clause is the wrong place to put them.

Roger Gale: Order. Sorry to interject again. I should just like to make it clear to hon. Members that the amendments are perfectly in order, and that the clause is indeed the right place for them.

James Paice: I had no doubt about that, Mr. Stevenson. I was challenging not the Chairman but the Minister, who said that they were not relevant to the national policing plan. I had no doubt that the amendments were in order; otherwise I should not have tabled them, and you would certainly not have selected them.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) says, the policing plan could provide the basis for a Home Secretary to lay down plans that would impinge on police forces' powers, whether or not the Minister or the current Home Secretary intends or expects it to. Let me give the Committee an example. The Home Secretary has for some months been saying that his plan is to have 130,000 police officers in post by the end of March 2003. As that is his plan, one assumes that if a national policing plan were in place today, that would be part of it, so one could make the immediate assumption that a future policing plan might say that by 31 March the following year, there would be 130,000 police officers plus 10,000 community support officers, or whatever figure the Government of the day choose. 
 I strongly contend that such targets would not appear in the plan. I cannot believe that the current target of 130,000 for next year would not have been in the present plan if such a thing existed. One could put a target for CSOs, or indeed accredited community safety schemes, into the plan. As that is the foundation for much of the Bill—certainly for the ensuing clauses in part 1, including the new clause to which the Minister referred—I think that the issue is pretty critical. 
 The Minister chided me on my selective quotations. I am happy first to plead guilty and secondly to accept his corrections, as he made a volte-face and supported what the Secretary of State said to the Police Federation—that the Government do not intend to force CSOs or accredited safety schemes on police forces. If that is the case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with agreeing to the amendments in order to ensure that such targets do not appear in the plan. It is eminently probable that they would if such a plan were in place now. 
 If we do not want what is roughly old clause 5, now new clause 4, to be a backdoor route for such an imposition, we could address that issue later. I would like the beginning of the Bill to state, quite clearly, that no national plan can say that the Government believe that there should be X number of CSOs or any of the other officers, even regular ones. In some ways, I share the view of the hon. Member for Lewes that police authorities should make those decisions.

John Denham: It would be useful to clarify that point. The hon. Gentleman refers to the Government's target of 130,000 police officers. Is he telling the Committee that he thinks that the Government are wrong to have that target? That would be of great interest to everyone.
 Mr. Paice: The Minister knows our position full well—we have debated the issue many times. If 130,000 police offers are deployed in England and Wales by 31 March next year, Opposition Members will be delighted. However, it is our view, as it was in government, that the real decisions about staffing should be taken by police authorities. That is a direct reflection of resources.

Annette Brooke: I want to pick up on the point about resources. I am sure that we would all like higher and higher national targets for police numbers. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that, although we would be delighted if there were extra funds, there is a danger that the money will be prescribed if the amendments are made? The balance between police and other support should be the choice of the local police authority, whereas nationally we must all fight for the greatest resources and the greatest number of police that we can have.

James Paice: I largely agree with the hon. Lady, but if we concentrate on resources for too long, I suspect that you will jump to your feet yet again, Mr. Stevenson.
 I return to the substance of the amendments. They are complementary, because amendment No. 126 deals with regular officers and CSOs, while No. 127 concerns accredited schemes. It is important to have such measures in the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister agrees with the premise of the amendments, it seems crazy to rely on Pepper v. Hart for interpretation after the provisions are in statute? For the sake of plain English, and so that the legislation can be easily understood by their successors, the Government should accept the amendments.

James Paice: I agree, although I have been advised that Pepper v. Hart would not apply in such a situation, because it covers not what is supposed to be in the Bill or what the Bill means but the Government's intent. It is essential that the Bill clearly sets out what the Government purport to intend, which the main Opposition parties agree with.

Vera Baird: Is not the amendment slightly misguided, if its purpose is to keep up the numbers of police? It would remove the ability of the Home Secretary to specify the number of police. A chief constable who is keen on CSOs and the community accreditation scheme—as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis seems to be—would then be free to get the balance wrong in the other direction. That is the main problem with the amendment.

James Paice: One of the themes that we want to bring to the Bill, as we did in the other place, is our worry about the choice to make national decisions being removed from police authorities and chief constables and being given to the Home Secretary. Such decisions should be left ultimately to the chief constable—or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—in conjunction with his police authority.
 Norman Baker: Does not the force of the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), for whom I have tremendous respect, carry the underlying assumption that, if there were more centralisation, there would be more police and the service would be better run? That is the completely wrong assumption.

James Paice: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said on Second Reading that Pepper v. Hart did not apply, and that has been confirmed in Committee. Does not that make it doubly worrying that we are relying purely on the present Minister's interpretation? That confirms that there are no safeguards to ensure that what he asserts now and what we wish to achieve will ultimately end up in the Bill.

James Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I have rehearsed the arguments for the amendment. Nothing would stop a future national plan containing references to specific numbers of CSOs, accredited safety schemes or regular officers. That will be the basis on which many other parts of the Bill, including the powers under new clause 4, will be founded, so it is right that it should be written into the Bill. Unless the Minister can pledge to me that his and the Home Secretary's statements can be enshrined in legislation elsewhere in the Bill to ensure that there is no central direction, I wish to push the matter to a vote.

John Denham: I merely repeat that the kernel of the issue is, with respect, not the national policing plan, which is, as I explained, not enforceable, whatever is in it. I hope that it will be a consensus of best practice, developed after consultation. The critical question for debate is whether there is a power to direct a chief constable to employ CSOs, and I have made my position clear on that. I recognise the importance of that debate, and I suggest that it takes place when we discuss new clause 4.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister not accept that if one lays a track, that determines the direction in which the train goes?

John Denham: I am not sure that I understand that. There are differences between us. Clearly, the Opposition parties believe that the Government are wrong to set a target of 130,000 police officers and to deploy the finance for those officers. The Liberal Democrats have a right to say that they disagree with us. The Conservative party said, ''You shouldn't do that sort of thing. We wouldn't want to see that number of police officers in a national policing plan.'' I believe that the Government have taken a reasonable, right and proper decision to increase the number of police officers and make the finance available. The vast majority of people will find it extraordinary that it has been suggested this morning that that should not happen.

James Paice: I cannot but react to that last jibe, because the Minister knows that he has completely misinterpreted what we said. Talk about selective
 interpretation—that is a complete misrepresentation. We believe that the national policing plan should be resource-led, and we welcome the availability of resources for 130,000 police officers. We have no objection to the Home Secretary talking about money being available for 130,000. We object to the concept of ring-fencing funds, which is highly applicable to the amendments. The concept is being used for the crime fighting fund and could be used to make money available solely for the employment of CSOs. It would be much better for money to be available for extra manpower, womanpower, personpower or whatever politically correct phraseology I should adopt. If money is being made available for those people, the choice of who they are—whether regular officers or CSOs—should be for the police.

Ian Lucas: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a future Home Secretary would overtly set up a national policing plan that would prescribe a reduction in the number of police officers?

James Paice: That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been listening. The Minister has done nothing to allay my concern that the policing plan as currently defined in the clause could lay out objectives for the number of CSOs or community accredited safety schemes that would then be a basis for later clauses. We have not yet reached new clause 4, so we cannot debate it, but I am certain that if the Government had the powers contained in the old clause 5, those powers would reflect back to what was in the national policing plan.

Ian Lucas: Is not the point that, if the Home Secretary prescribed a situation in which the number of police officers would decline at the expense of the number of CSOs, he would be directly, politically accountable for that and be held to account by the electorate in due course? We are being overt in setting priorities, and there will be political accountability at the end of the process.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman has simply undermined the Minister's arguments. I think that he should sit a further row back if he is going to make such comments in future.
 We are worried not about the process being overt but about whether the figures would be in the plan. The issue is not the Home Secretary saying that there will be fewer police officers. I repeat the example that if a policing plan had been in place this year, I have no doubt that the figure of 130,000 regular officers would have been in it. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to make the supposition that next year's plan might say that in the following March there would be 130,000 officers—no reduction—plus 5,000 or 10,000 community support officers. The Home Secretary should not decide that resources that are available for CSOs should be spent on CSOs. If a chief constable receives extra resources, he should be able to decide whether to use them to employ CSOs or more regular 
 officers. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is shaking his head. He obviously does not trust chief constables.

Nick Hawkins: Are our suspicions about the way in which these matters might be handled in future years—if the amendments are not accepted—reinforced by the fact that we are starting to hear speeches about the ''police family''? That blurs the distinction between fully trained and properly qualified police officers and people who might have less training. One can see the hand of the Treasury trying to muddy the waters. We might not see 130,000 police officers in future plans.

James Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Bill does not apply to only this Government and this Home Secretary, because it will be on the statute book for many years. That is our worry.
 I have rehearsed the arguments and I am not convinced by the Minister's responses. I shall press the amendment to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 2, line 31, leave out
'persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police'
 and insert 
'the Association of Chief Police Officers'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 115, in clause 6, page 6, line 17, leave out
'persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police' 
and insert 
'the Association of Chief Police Officers'. 
No. 116, in clause 6, page 6, line 27, leave out 
'persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police' 
and insert 
'the Association of Chief Police Officers'. 
No. 120, in clause 20, page 19, line 37, leave out 
 'persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police' 
 and insert 
'the Association of Chief Police Officers'. 
No. 121, in clause 22, page 22, line 25, leave out 
'persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police' 
and insert 
'the Association of Chief Police Officers'.

Nick Hawkins: I, too, welcome to you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I also welcome your co-Chairman, Miss Widdecombe, who will chair our future sittings.
 The amendments are purely probing and are all to the same effect. We simply want to explore the benefit of replacing in the clause the person whom the Home Secretary of the day 
''considers to represent the interests of chief officers of the police'' 
with the well-known and highly regarded Association of Chief Police Officers. I appreciate that that was debated in the other place, but this is a refinement of a Lords amendment. If a future Home Secretary seriously fell out with the leader of ACPO, he might create a new organisation that would tell him what he wanted to hear. That would not happen now, and may seem far-fetched, but we wanted to see what the Minister thought, and whether there was any reason why ACPO should not be named in the Bill.

John Denham: ACPO is an association for chief officers and other senior ranks in the police service, and is the key body for consulting representatives of chief officers. There is also a registered company—the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some years ago, ACPO split to produce another body—the Chief Police Officers Staff Association—that could concentrate on the trade union functions of representing chief officers rather than professional issues of policing practice. We consulted ACPO to some extent about suspension powers, which we will discuss later, but dealt most directly with CPOSA, as chief constable members consider it the most appropriate body.
 The wording avoids the danger that an organisation might change its structure and its name in the future. The simplest thing to do was to follow the practice and the language of the Police Act 1996. ACPO is the representative body of chief police officers and the professional body that we will consult.

Nick Hawkins: I understand what the Minister is saying. As I said, we are not discussing issues of principle, and perhaps the Government may consider tabling an amendment if they are persuaded by our argument. It might provide an extra safeguard if reference were made to ''the organisation that is generally considered to represent the interests of chief officers'', rather than relying on the discretion of the Home Secretary of the day.

John Denham: I have a feeling that parliamentary counsel would throw a fit if we asked him to write that into legislation. The formula has been used since the 1996 Act, and has never given rise to any problem or confusion. It has enabled us to deal flexibly with the
 restructuring of an organisation to deal with staffing and employment. It is well understood, everyone knows what it will do, and it is satisfactory.

Nick Hawkins: As I said, the amendments are probing. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 32, at end insert—
'(ba) the Service Authorities for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad;
(bb) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Director General of the National Crime Squad.'.
 This is part 2 of our earlier discussion about NCIS and the National Crime Squad. Hon. Members will recall that the Minister accepted that there is a need, in producing a national policing plan, to take account of their activities, and that it is impossible to separate what is done by those two bodies and by the 43 police authorities and police forces. The amendment would ensure that NCIS and the NCS are consulted as part of the plan's preparation. Unless I am mistaken, the Minister recognised the need for that consultation, so I look forward to his accepting the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: We certainly see some benefit in the amendment. We would be happy for it to be in the Bill, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given.

John Denham: Hon. Members will be aware from discussions in another place that the original draft of the Bill did not specify long lists of people to be consulted, on the basis that if it did, everyone would want to add people. We accepted the strength of the argument that it was important to specify chief officers and police authorities, and we were pleased to table amendments to that effect.
 This amendment, however, takes us into slippery slope territory. One could refer to a variety of interests—such as representatives of witnesses and victims—that the Government said in the White Paper would be consulted in drawing up the national policing plan, and ask why they are not listed in the Bill. Indeed, I can see the hon. Member for Lewes drafting an amendment for Report stage as I speak. However, I hope that the Committee accepts what I said earlier. We recognise the kernel of the issue. Developing the national policing plan relates to the 43 police forces, but we must ensure that that is not a disparate or separate activity from the work and priorities of NCIS and the NCS. The flexibility in the Bill about who is consulted will enable us to ensure that those bodies have an opportunity to contribute to developing the national policing plan as appropriate. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurances. I accept that he has raised an issue worthy of discussion, but adding more and more consultees on a statutory basis, as would inevitably happen if the amendment was accepted, would not be helpful.

Norman Baker: I hear what the Minister says and I suppose that his argument about a potentially endless list is valid. However, it was not entirely fair to
 compare victims and witnesses, important though they may be, with direct parts of the police family, drawn in many ways from existing police forces and police authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said.
 Once again, the Minister asks us to rely on his assurances and good will. As I have said, I have no problem with his assurances and good will, but how long will he or the Home Secretary be in office? We are not here to draft legislation based on the personalities who happen to be in office at the moment and what they are likely to do. Our role is to draft useful legislation that will stand the test of time.

Kevan Jones: Half an hour ago, the hon. Gentleman argued that local police authorities should be the supreme bodies. How can he reconcile that with his request for a national body to be consulted on the national policing plan?

Norman Baker: I can do so for the very reasons that I gave half an hour ago, if the hon. Gentleman was listening. If a national policing plan is to make sense and be accepted, it must indeed be national and take account of all police who are active throughout the country. It is not sufficient simply to pick up on the police authorities in the plan and ignore the rest. The Minister says that he will consult the bodies to which I have referred and take their views into account, but he is not willing to make that explicit in the Bill. He may take what they say into account, but what is to prevent a future Minister or Home Secretary from declining to do that? They might say, ''I'm not in favour of all this consultation nonsense: it takes up the time of the Home Office officials, and I have better things to do.'' They might then ask their officials, ''Who do we have to consult? Who can we get away with consulting? Let's get this thing out of the way quickly.'' The officials might reply, ''Well, Minister, you must consult these authorities and the chief police officers.'' Then they might begin to recount what the Minister's predecessor had said about the matter, but the present Minister might interrupt them and say, ''Never mind what my predecessor said. We will cut off the process there.''
 That could happen, which is why the Minister must base legislation on what could happen, rather than on what he wishes to do in the next three months.

Kevan Jones: As is usual for a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman is saying one thing to one audience and another to another.
 If NCIS or the NCS were to argue for something in the policing plan, and the local police authority said that it wanted something else, which of them would get supremacy? Would the local police authority have more say than the national police?

Norman Baker: The Home Secretary would have the final say, because it is his plan. However, the Home Secretary should listen to local police authorities and
 the NCS. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Home Secretary should not listen to those bodies, I do not know what planet he is on.
 If we are going to have a proper national policing plan, it should not incorporate only the Home Secretary's views, nor only the representations of chief police officers and police authorities. It would be sensible to insert what the amendment proposes. 
 We have already had a Division this morning, so I am not inclined to put this matter to a vote, but I think that what the Minister has said is wrong, not because I do not believe his good intentions but because, if this is not written into the Bill, he will not have a national policing plan that is a plan in the true sense of that word. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Denham: The Committee covered most of the substantive issues during its discussions of the amendments, so I do not intend to speak for long.
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about the Metropolitan police service, which has begun a publicity campaign today that will lead to a recruitment process for CSOs. The position is simple: the decision was taken by the Metropolitan police service. Any powers that those CSOs have when they are employed will be determined by the Bill in its final form—as enacted. If there are no such powers in it, they will have no statutory powers; if there are limited powers, only limited powers will be available to them. 
 The Metropolitan police force made a judgment. It has the resources, and it wishes to go ahead with the process of recruiting CSOs. It will take time to advertise the concept of CSOs—to explain what the job is about and to attract interest in it. Therefore, it will take time to get people into training. The force wants to start the process now because it believes that having such people available as soon as possible is good for the people of London.

Nick Hawkins: Can the Minister think of any other examples of situations in which a new type of authority is being established, and a recruitment campaign is going on for something, when there is not yet any statutory authority for doing that? I cannot.
 We all recognise that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is doing a splendid job in difficult circumstances, and that he is anxious to increase the number of people available to him. However, as it is clear from all the debates in the media that this whole issue is controversial, does the Minister think it wise—

Roger Gale: Order. Interventions must be as short as possible. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. If he catches my eye to indicate that he wishes to take part in the debate, I will happily try to accommodate him.
 Mr. Denham: The Metropolitan police are acting under section 15 of the 1996 Act, which was introduced by the Conservative party when it was in Government. That section enables it to employ civilian staff.
 I come to the powers that CSOs would be able to exercise. If the Bill were to fall for some reason, there would be civilians who were called CSOs. They would not be statutory CSOs under an Act, but under current legislation the Metropolitan police are perfectly entitled to go ahead with the recruitment process. As I said, it is a matter for the Metropolitan commissioner and the Metropolitan police authority.

Nick Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says, but he and his officials should reflect on the way in which the idea has been presented. It is for media organisations to choose how they present stories, but the idea was presented in this morning's media with shots of police officers in full uniform, which did not imply that people would be recruited as civilians. Is the Minister prepared to examine that? If Parliament is to have any relevance, it is important that bodies do not jump the gun. When controversial matters are being debated and a Bill is still going through the House, it is perhaps unwise for some of its more controversial aspects to be the subject of a media campaign. I am sure that the Minister will have discussions about that matter, and we look forward to hearing from him if, having spoken to the people responsible for the marketing, he has any further thoughts.
 We have had a good debate on many of the issues that arise from clause 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and others have mentioned, many of the issues will come back for debate at a later stage, so I shall not detain the Committee any further. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Codes of practice for chief officers

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 3, line 29, at end insert
', subject however to the views of the police authority and his own judgement as to what is effective and efficient in the area in which that function is to be discharged.'.
 The clause introduces codes of practice for chief officers. There was considerable debate in the other place when the clause as originally drafted was introduced by the Government. I am pleased to say that as a result of those debates and many amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats and other parties, the Government introduced their own amendments, and the clause is now much better. It would have been unacceptable in its original form. A lot of consultation is now included, and the concerns of ACPO and other police representative bodies have been taken into account. 
 However, one concern remains, which relates to the last sentence in the new section provided for by the clause. New subsection (7) says: 
 ''In discharging any function to which a code of practice under this section relates, a chief officer of police shall have regard to the code.'' 
When it was debated in the other place, Lord Rooker twice made a point about the codes of practice, and I am sure that he was right. He said: 
 ''They are not binding on the chief constable.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 136.] 
On 28 February, he referred to the fact that he had written a long letter to many Lords in response to concerns about the centralising aspects of the Bill. The letter, he said, referred to 
''guidance which is purely advisory''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 1581.] 
There is no doubt that the Government intend that the implementation of codes of practice should be discretionary, but there is concern about the phrase ''shall have regard to'' and precisely how much power it will give to a Secretary of State, considering the other powers in the Bill, to intervene if a police chief constable decides not to do something along the lines of the code of practice.

Paul Stinchcombe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he genuinely believe that the amendment is necessary? Clearly, regard should be had to the code of practice; the chief constable should also have regard to the police authority and, having done so, will exercise his own judgment—so why do we need the amendment?

James Paice: The point is that it is not clear from the way in which the clause is written that the chief officer can ultimately exercise his own judgment. If the clause is accepted, giving the Home Secretary considerable powers of micro-management, he or she could refer back to the fact that a chief officer had decided to use his judgment not to adhere to a code of practice and intervene by micro-managing that police force. The amendment seeks only to provide that a chief officer can exercise his own judgment, in consultation with the police authority, on what is effective and efficient in his area. It seeks to insert into the Bill the proposals already made in the other place by Lord Rooker.

John Denham: There is not at present a sufficiently effective means of disseminating and embedding proven good practice across the police service and the provisions for strengthening those mechanisms are an important part of the Bill. There are many advantages, which have been rehearsed in other places, to having local police forces rather than a national police force, but one of the disadvantages of that can be that good practice that is developed and proven in one area may spread only slowly to other areas. We sometimes see that in the variations in the performance of police forces, albeit in similar areas, in different parts of the country.
 The Bill seeks to introduce a framework for enabling and supporting all forces to come up to the standards of the best. That was set out in the White Paper on police reform, which was published before Christmas, 
 and was described as a three-tier structure for promoting best practice. Two of the tiers have a statutory basis, unlike the third—guidance from the Home Office, ACPO, or the Association of Police Authorities. 
 In practice, the amendment would cause everything other than the regulation-making powers to collapse into mere guidance. It became clear in the long discussions that the police reforming working group held last year with chief officers, the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation that a middle tier of guidance, setting out best practice, is necessary. It would be the duty of a chief constable to have regard to that guidance, while retaining his professional discretion on how it might be followed or applied—or not, in a particular case. It therefore constitutes the middle ground between later clauses of the Bill that specify certain types of equipment, for example, and areas of best practice. 
 As we said in the White Paper, we would use guidance selectively. Most people would be in no doubt that while we may not need now to drive best practice across the service, in addition to the consultation laid down in the Bill, it would have been useful in the past in terms of such issues as the management of occupational health and sickness in the police service—an area of huge variation throughout the service.

George Osborne: The Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay the codes of practice before Parliament. There are some exemptions. Could the Minister make it clear that those exemptions are on grounds of national security, prevention of crime and jeopardising the safety of persons, and would be the exception to the rule? As drafted they could be very broad because the phrase
''could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime'' 
covers almost everything that the police do.

John Denham: If an important piece of guidance, such as the ACPO guidance on the use of firearms, became a code of practice—there is pretty good standardisation here but it might be perceived as a need if forces were veering away from best practice—we would not want to put it in full in the public domain because it includes important operational matters that could put the lives of police officers at risk. The clause has been drafted to cover such areas. It is not intended that there will be a vast body of secret codes of practice covering how ordinary crimes are investigated or problems are tackled.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give a guarantee that codes of practice will not be used for any operational decisions? It could be argued that it would be efficient and effective to soft pedal on cannabis use in Lambeth. Could he give an undertaking that such matters will not appear in a code of practice?

John Denham: The aim of the code of practice is to ensure that we establish best practice across the service. Nothing that we do here can direct how an
 individual is arrested or a crime is investigated. Interpretation of the best way of achieving the law is a legitimate area where existing best practice can be considered, such as in public order situations. Nothing in this can fetter the discretion that individual officers must have when carrying out their policing practice or that chief constables must have when taking decisions about individuals.
 I do not want to give a definitive list of the areas of crime that will be considered. We are committed to consult with the police service about the priorities and I do not want to pre-empt those discussions. I give these only as examples. If we find that there are clear best practice models for dealing with persistent offenders that we would want to incorporate into codes of practice, they would be the subject of this sort of guidance. It is extremely unlikely that a police experiment in one place would leap into a code in practice. The consultation procedure, which will be supported by the national centre for policing excellence, will provide a structure that will say that we cannot take a particular view on a type of policing without good evidence of what works.

James Paice: I am grateful for the Minister's response. As I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, we are not concerned about the codes of practice. Many concerns have been raised but most were answered satisfactorily in the other place. We are simply concerned about their relevant significance vis-a-vis the judgment of a chief officer on the ground. The Minister used the word ''guidance'' again just now. I interpret his remarks as endorsing those of Lord Rooker when he said that they would not be binding on the chief officer. What is ultimately the interpretation of ''shall have regard'' to the code? Would disregarding the code—or, perhaps, having looked at the code, deciding that local circumstances require doing something else—become a ground for intervention on the basis of the powers that we are to debate later?
 Mr. Denham: It is a matter for later debate, but it is an important issue. The potential powers of direction will be triggered by the performance of the police service—in other words, how well it is doing in respect of key indicators such as fear of crime, tackling burglary, and so forth. Enforcing something different from this place will not be a substantive issue: if the police service is catching criminals and the public is happy with the reduction of crime, no one will interfere. It is not an input-side mechanism. If, however, performance on dealing with persistent offenders is appalling and a code of practice on that matter is obviously being ignored, the existence of that code of practice would be a material consideration to be taken into account. The process is driven by what the public receives from the policing service. That is the starting point.

James Paice: I am grateful for that helpful explanation. We have not yet had the crucial debate surrounding the issue: we are debating in a vacuum. I shall not press the amendment to a vote: it was mainly a probing amendment and the Minister has responded fully, albeit without assuaging all my concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Denham: Unless the Opposition parties want further debate, I believe that we have covered the relevant issues. Other important points have already been put on the record in another place, so I see no need to detain the Committee.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock. 
Stevenson, Mr. George ( Chairman) 
 Baird, Vera 
 Baker, Norman 
 Brooke, Annette 
 Challen, Mr. 
 Denham, Mr. 
 Follett, Barbara 
 Gillan, Mrs. 
 Hawkins, Mr. 
 Irranca-Davies, Huw 
 Johnson, Mr. Boris 
 Jones, Mr. Kevan 
Kumar, Dr. 
 Lucas, Ian 
 MacDougall, Mr. 
 McGuire, Mrs. 
 Munn, Ms 
 Osborne, Mr. George 
 Paice, Mr. 
 Prentice, Bridget 
 Stinchcombe, Mr. 
 Stoate, Dr.